DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0298713 to Arankalle et al. (“Arankalle”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Arankalle discloses a laundry treatment apparatus (100; washer and/or dryer in ¶ [0016]) comprising:
a cabinet (see Fig.1 and ¶ [0017]) including a laundry inlet (108);
a drum (109) provided inside the cabinet and accommodating laundry input through the laundry inlet;
a driving part (not shown, see ¶ [0017]) connected to the drum and providing rotational force to the drum;
a door (106) provided movably in the cabinet and moved to correspond to one of a closed state in which the laundry inlet is closed and an open state in which the laundry inlet is open;
a door opening part (120) provided in the cabinet and moving the door from the closed state to the open state; and
a controller (see ¶ [0023]; note controller controlling plural cycles, components, etc.) provided inside the cabinet to control the door opening part,
wherein the controller performs one of a plurality of laundry treatment courses by controlling the driving part to rotate the drum, controls the door opening part to move the door from the closed state to the open state, when a first course among the plurality of laundry treatment courses is completed, and maintains the door in the closed state, when a second course different from the first course among the plurality of laundry treatment courses is completed (see ¶ [0023] wherein the controller controls plural cycles and controls opening and closing of the door, which reads on the controller as functions claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Arankalle further discloses wherein with whether to operate the door opening part for the first course set by a user, the controller controls the door opening part to move the door to the open state after the first course is completed (see doopr opening upon completing a cycle in ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Arankalle further discloses wherein the plurality of laundry treatment courses include a wash course for washing laundry and a dry course for drying laundry, and wherein the first course corresponds to the wash course, and the second course corresponds to the dry course (see above regarding plural courses including washing and drying).
Regarding claim 4, Arankalle further discloses wherein the plurality of laundry treatment courses further include a wash and dry course for successively washing and drying laundry, and wherein the second course corresponds to the dry course or the wash and dry course (see ¶ [0016] for “washing and/or drying clothes”, which requires a washer/dryer capable of washing and subsequently drying; also note that washer/dryer combinations are notoriously well known).
Regarding claims 10-11, Arankalle further discloses an outlet part (114 as display/speaker(s) in ¶ [0022]-[0023]) provided in the cabinet and outputting a screen, wherein when the door is moved to the open state by the door opening part, the controller controls the output part to output an open message notifying a user of the open state, and when the door is maintained in the closed state, the controller controls the output part to output a recommendation message recommending the user to open the door, further comprising an input part provided in the cabinet and generating an input signal by being manipulated by the user, wherein the output part outputs a settings object selected based on the input signal, and upon selection of the settings object, outputs a settings screen displaying a plurality of setting items, and wherein the plurality of setting items include a setting item for setting whether to operate the door opening part (see ¶ [0023] where controller instructs door opening part to open or close door by user command).
Regarding claim 12, Arankalle further discloses wherein the setting item for setting whether to operate the door opening part is set by the input part, only when the first course among the plurality of processing courses is performed (performing only the first course above combined with features of claim 11 are readable on the teachings of Arankalle above).
Regarding claim 13, Arankalle further discloses wherein when the door opening part is set to be inoperable for the first course, the output part outputs a message recommending the user to set the door opening part to an operable state (Arankalle above reads on the invention as claimed, as the door opening part may be inoperable (not activated) by user).
Regarding claim 14, Arankalle further discloses further comprising an output part provided in the cabinet and outputting a screen, wherein the output part outputs a message recommending a user to set the door opening part to an operable state, after the first course is completed (see user interface 114 above in Arankalle, which is fully capable of outputting operational messages to user).
Regarding claim 15, Arankalle further discloses wherein the controller performs one of a first mode in which the first course is available and a second mode in which the second course is available, and wherein upon selection of the setting item for setting whether to operate the door opening part, the output part outputs a message notifying the user that the door opening part is operable only in the first mode or that the door opening part is inoperable in the second mode (see user interface 114 above in Arankalle, which is fully capable of performing multiple courses/modes and outputting operational messages to user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arankalle in view of US 2022/0120023 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
Regarding claims 5-9, Arankalle, supra, discloses the claimed invention including using plural treatment courses and automatic door opening/closing. Arankalle discloses washing and drying, but does not expressly disclose use of a “care course”, such as dewrinkling. However, the prior art is replete with teachings of various courses including washing, drying, and steam dewrinkling. For instance, Lee (see ¶ [0003]) teaches an art-related laundry treatment machine and that it is known to perform a wash function, dry function, or both, as well as a refresh function such as wrinkle press-out, deodorization, static electricity removal, etc. (readable on a “care course”).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to incorporate the refresh course of Lee with the wash and dry course of Arankalle to achieve the same and predictable results of controlling automatic door opening/closing of a laundry treatment machine for various known washing courses. Regarding the controller steps as claimed, it is noted that it would be well within the general knowledge and skill of a skilled artisan to arrange the controller steps as desired to achieve the same and predictable results of controlling the opening/closing of the door between or after the operational courses as claimed absent an adequate showing of secondary considerations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights